This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
Help Menu or
Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
Your summary of the above discussion is far too generous to Wikiversity. Wikiversity-based sources are considered no more reliable than other wiki-based pages, and in general material on Wikiversity should be treated with the same level of trust (i.e., generally very little) as any other
self-published source. The reliability and robustness of Wikiversity's 'peer review' process is untested.
TenOfAllTrades(
talk)
16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)reply
It seems recent discussions have basically come to the same conclusion, that inclusion in Wikiversity does not in itself make a source reliable for usage in Wikipedia:
I'm about to suggest at discussions above that every usage of Wikiversity articles as sources in Wikipedia first needs an entry at this talk page. To make the current cases conform to this rule, I'm listing them below.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
15:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I propose using this Wikiversity article as a reference in the suggested diagrams, since this is the current file usage as seen at the
image description page. Linking to the Wikiversity article asserts that the image has undergone peer review, and avails for a more detailed description of the development of the article than can conveniently be done at the image description page in Commons.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
16:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry but no... Wikiversity article's are not considered reliable sources... no matter how "peer reviewed" they might be.
Blueboar (
talk)
17:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, when not conducted on the relevant article talk page, should be conducted on the reliable sources noticeboard.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
17:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
This is not the 'optimal place' to hold discussions about matters concerning reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. We have a noticeboard specifically for that purpose. Nothing decided on this talk page will alter the fact that, per Wikipedia policy, we do not accept Wikis as sources. If you wish to propose that the policy be changed, do so at the appropriate place. Meanwhile, per policy, any Wikiversity material cited on Wikipedia will be rejected as unreliably sourced. This isn't open to negotiation here.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
18:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough - but it doesn't alter the facts that (a) this isn't an appropriate place for such discussions, and (b) that, per policy, Wikipedia doesn't cite Wikis as sources.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
18:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Agreed. This is the wrong place, and local Wikiprojects can't override consensus at RSN. That's established. This talk page is to discuss this article.
Dougweller (
talk)
18:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Indeed, this is the wrong place for the discussion. It seems WikiProjectMedicine has become the most active discussion in this case, but I promise I won't make a nomination like this one without also leaving a note at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Include "Conditions and findings named after foods"?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is not yet acceptable as a reference itself, its main function is now to be an entry point for texts and images that qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia in their own right. I think that qualification is best discussed even before publication in this journal, and therefore I will now make entries on this page for new submissions to the journal, starting with the most recently peer reviewed submission,
Table of pediatric medical conditions and findings named after foods:
I support the inclusion of this article in the journal. As mentioned in the
peer review, I think it can be used to make a
list article in Wikipedia, adding to the collection of such lists at
Medical eponyms. I don't think such a list in Wikipedia needs to be restricted to pediatric conditions and findings.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
05:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Some of the sources are primary in nature. Thus hard to say how much traction some of these terms have received. Also would drop the "pediatric" bit. Some of these terms are used in all ages.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
20:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Additional discussion about this article is located at:
Why is Wikiversity content being discussed on Wikipedia? We aren't going to cite this article, per long-established policy, and any Wikipedia article on the subject of 'medical conditions and findings named after foods' would need to comply with normal Wikipedia policies - most obviously, evidence from
published reliable sources that 'medical conditions and findings named after foods' was a
notable subject. This cannot of course be demonstrated by simply compiling such a list - we need in-depth discussion of it as a topic in reliable sources. Which frankly I have my doubts will be found.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
05:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I am well aware that Wikipedia has articles on individual medical conditions etc named after foods. That is beside the point when discussing the notability of lists however. A Wikipedia list of such medical conditions would require evidence that 'medical conditions named after foods' had been discussed as a group in reliable sources to the extent that it met our notability guidelines. The Wikiversity article cites one such source Food for thought: Palatable eponyms from Pediatrics,
[1] but I'm not sure that would be sufficient on its own.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
06:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response
AndyTheGrump. As you highlighted yourself, this discussion is about Wikiversity content. We are debating the inclusion of the
article into the
Wikiversity Journal of Medicine and not into Wikipedia. Like you, we are not sure why this discussion should be done here because it is not consistent with widely accepted standards for
peer-review. You seem to imply that we provide only one source of such lists, which is
not true. LK and GM
Part (
talk)
09:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As mentioned in the
peer review of this article, I took the photos for this article, and therefore I may be too directly involved in it to have any kind of vote in favor for it. The purpose of this article is to provide images for
the Wikipedia article on Aerococcus urinae (which doesn't have any images yet), as well as providing more information about the actual case for anyone who wants to know more about the origin of the images. I doubt I would have gotten these images if it wasn't for Wikiversity Journal, much so to the fact that it is much easier to get other people involved by suggesting to make a "publication" rather than to make an "upload to Wikimedia Commons for possible inclusion in Wikipedia", and as such I think it's a good example for how Wikiversity Journal can benefit Wikipedia.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
13:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia policy is clear - we don't cite Wikis as sources. Please stop misusing this page as a platform for promoting your own content. The only appropriate subject for this talk page is material directly relating to the Wikipedia article on Wikiversity.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
17:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
The reason I choose to post article submissions in Wikipedia at all is to make it easier for Wikipedia users like yourself to keep a watch of what is going on. I find it acceptable to keep discussions about article submissions in Wikiversity alone, but they will affect Wikipedia, so it would make Wikipedia users having to frequently check their Wikiversity watchlists too.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your post
Mikael Häggström. I don't see any issue with discussing anything which may be even remotely relevant to Wikipedia here. We constantly discuss Wikidata etc. over at
WP:MED. Also I think
AndyTheGrump misunderstands the question at hand. The guidelines are not so set in stone, and I think they are misinterpreting what "wiki" means in this context.--
CFCF🍌 (
email)
20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply
It's nevertheless not optimal to have these discussions at a page that is in fact intended to function as a rather technical guide to e.g. link to Wikiversity. I like the idea of having a subpage at WikiProject Medicine, such as
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Wikiversity_Journal for these discussions. It would allow for easier overview of the submissions to the journal.
Mikael Häggström (
talk)
20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)reply